This section describes the political context of the reviewed member and outlines recent developments in Italy’s governing coalition. The section presents the latest economic growth estimates for Italy, which could impact the outlook of Italy’s development finance commitments. The section also focuses on the changes to the development co-operation system since the last DAC peer review. It notes a number of important structural changes over the past five years focused on new ministerial responsibility, new entities created, and new responsibilities assigned.

This chapter examines Italy’s approach to global sustainable development, including its response to global challenges, action to ensure coherence between domestic policies and global sustainable development objectives, and efforts to raise awareness of global development issues at home.Italy actively supports global sustainable development, in particular where it links international engagement with domestic expertise, such as on cultural heritage and agriculture. Yet, there is potential to do more in other areas. Mechanisms for policy coherence for sustainable development are not fully effective and coherence issues in migration policy remain unresolved. However, Italy’s performance on climate change, environment, security, finance and trade is good overall. On development awareness, Italy shows good practice in enabling multi-stakeholder efforts and mobilising the migrant diaspora. Government action to implement the strategy for global citizenship education will be important for reaching and sensitising all citizens.

This chapter assesses the extent to which clear political directives, policies and strategies shape Italy’s development co-operation and are in line with international commitments, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.The new Italian co-operation law lays a strong foundation for principled and quality development co-operation. The three-year programming and policy planning document (PPPD) and policy guidance reflect the SDGs and help focus on populations at risk of being left behind. However, the PPPD’s annual renewal makes medium-term planning a challenge. Italy also lacks guidance on some of its top priorities, including migration and fragility. Furthermore, Italy lacks processes to ensure that programming and allocation decisions match its policy priorities. A more strategic outlook could further enhance Italy’s much-appreciated multilateral engagement.

This chapter considers how international and national commitments drive the volume and allocations of Italy’s official development assistance (ODA). It also explores Italy’s other financing efforts in support of the 2030 Agenda.Italy’s ODA saw a sharp increase from 2012 to 2017, even when excluding in-donor refugee costs. However, this positive trend is not likely to continue, as ODA decreased in 2018, and Italy is not meeting its commitments for mobilising 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) as total ODA and allocating 0.15% of GNI as ODA to least developed countries. Geographic, thematic and multilateral allocations mostly match Italy’s priorities, but some mismatches warrant further reflection. Italy stands out for its high share of core contributions to multilateral organisations. Its international engagement on tax crime and vaccine development financing are commendable, but financing to mobilise domestic resources and private-sector engagement is still limited.

This chapter reviews Italy’s organisational structures and management systems for its development co-operation, examining the extent to which they are fit for purpose and have the capacity to deliver Italy’sdevelopment objectives.Law 125/2014 clearly spells out the role and mandates of official development actors, and establishes new structures, notably the Italian Agency for Development Co-operation (AICS). Partnership approaches, transparency, accountability and the operationalisation of development policy are key characteristics of the law. In practice, the full implementation of this important reform is still in progress. Overall, Italy has clear processes and quality assurance checks in place; however, accountability will have to be managed as AICS implements a greater share of EU delegated co‑operation in its overall portfolio. Italy can also do more to encourage and scale up its innovation efforts. The human resources available to AICS and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation (MFAIC) are not adequate. A human resources plan is urgently needed to attract and retain skilled staff and ensure the satisfactory delivery of Italy’s development co-operation programme.

This chapter reviews Italy’s approach to delivering in partner countries and through partnerships to determine whether its approach is in line with the principles of effective development co-operation. Italy’s development co-operation is characterised by strong multi-stakeholder partnerships, including most recently with the Italian private sector and a broader spectrum of civil society. Calls for proposals and a project-based approach define many of these partnerships, which may not always be the most strategic means of engagement. Italy has made good progress on transparency and places a strong emphasis on country ownership, even if its choice of modalities could be even more supportive. Medium-term predictability continues to be an important challenge. The development effectiveness marker used for the purpose of project appraisals could assume a more important stocktaking role.

This chapter considers how Italy plans and manages for results that are in line with the Sustainable Development Goals, builds evidence of what works, and uses this to learn and adapt.Law 125/2014 calls for a results-based management system, which Italy is in the very early stages of developing. Today, monitoring Italy’s interventions and reporting results other than output indicators in a given country, sector or partnership is challenging. The evaluation system for Italian development co-operation was reorganised following the reform: responsibility still lies with MFAIC although the budget line is with AICS. Since 2014, Italy has adopted three-year rolling evaluation plans based on defined criteria; established an evaluation advisory committee; and set up an electronic register of independent evaluators. Italy uses evaluations to inform the design of future programme phases, but less explicitly to learn from successes and failures. It lacks a knowledge management system, or an intranet to connect field offices with Rome/Florence.

This chapter looks at how Italy minimises the impact of shocks and crises, and works to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain human dignity during crises and disasters.In 2017, Italy was the 11th largest DAC humanitarian donor, a significant increase since the last peer review. Italy is recognised for its capacity to respond rapidly to natural disasters. In fragile contexts, it has a rich and recognised experience in humanitarian interventions, based notably on a dense network of small to medium-size CSOs that have built solid partnerships in their countries of operation. This unique feature is a clear comparative advantage for Italy, giving it the scope to build a specific Italian approach to the humanitarian-development-peace nexus, based on local partnerships. However, this will require Italy to adapt its rigid administrative framework to crisis contexts.